Sunday, June 13, 2010

Why Coyne is False

A Jerry Coyne apologist responded to my pointing out that Coyne misrepresents embryonic development, as evolutionists often do. In his discussion of vertebrate development, Coyne claims that "All vertebrates begin development looking like embryonic fish because we all descended from a fishlike ancestor with a fishlike embryo. We see strange contortions and disappearances of organs, blood vessels, and gill slits because descendants still carry the genes and developmental programs of ancestors." [79]

But humans—and most other vertebrates for that matter—do not "begin development looking like embryonic fish" and second humans do not have gill slits at any embryonic stage.

The Coyne apologist objected because Coyne is well aware that those "gill slits" are not literally slits. Rather, they are grooves between the branchial arches which Coyne simply refers to as gill slits. The apologist writes:

He [Coyne] introduces branchial arches starting on p. 78: "Perhaps the most striking fish-like feature is a series of five to seven pouches, seperated by grooves, that lie on each side of the embryo near its future head. These pouches are called branchial arches, but we'll call them "arches" for short. [...] As fish and shark embryos develop, the first arch becomes a jaw and the rest become gill structures: the clefts between the pouches open up to become the gill slits, [...]. But in other vertebrates that don't have gills as adults, these arches turn into very different structures - structures that make up the head." And there's a figure with a shark and a human embryo, with an arrow pointing at the pouches of both embryos labelled "branchial arches".

In other words, Coyne is not so uninformed as to think that this stage of human development sports actual slits. Of course, but that was not my point. I have no doubt Coyne is a smart person and knows his biology. The problem is he is an evolutionist and as a consequence he makes a mockery of science. The problem, in this case, is not so much with his use of the word "slit" but with his use of the word "gill." More on this below, but first, the apologist concludes:

In my opinion, if you actually read the book instead of looking for a quote that can be misrepresented, than there's no way in which you can claim that Coyne actually means that human embryos have gill slits like those in adult fish. Even embryonic fish do not have open gill slits like an adult fish.

If evolutionists are searching for misrepresentations they should look closer to home. As usual, evolution is guilty of what it accuses others of doing. Coyne and evolutionists misrepresent science when they contort the embryonic evidence in an attempt to find support for their absurd ideas. And yes, I did read Coyne's book. It is the apologist who apparently has not read it since he quotes from the Google books version. Here is what I wrote in an earlier blog:

Some books are difficult to read because they are not well written while others are difficult to read because the ideas don't make sense. There is turgid prose and then there is turgid logic. I have finally finished Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True which, if Coyne was not a leading evolutionist of international repute, I would have dismissed after the first chapter. Coyne is an excellent writer but Why Evolution is True is a laborious read because it doesn't make much sense. Thumbing through my copy, I see page after page with margin notes indicating various fallacies and inconsistencies. More later on this, but for now here are some aggregate statistics.

By my count Coyne affirms the consequent 21 times throughout Why Evolution is True. He begs the question 33 times and makes 35 theological claims. Coyne fails to mention important scientific problems that bear on his points 31 times.

I finally tired of counting but the volume is a veritable treasure trove of evolutionary thought. There are the usual just-so stories, unfalsifiable claims, presumptuous statements, ad hominem criticisms and so forth. In the evolution genre you can hope for quality writing but it seems there is no escaping problems with the content of that writing.

Yes, I read the book.

Now what's wrong with Coyne's description of vertebrate development? First, vertebrates simply do not begin development looking like embryonic fish. This is what evolutionary theory predicts, and what evolutionists want to see. Yes there are similarities, but this is yet another case of theory-driven, rather than data-driven, thinking.

Also, Coyne describes development as the usual just-add-water process so typical in evolutionary thought. Life just happened to arise, so evolutionists view it as simple. Coyne writes:

In fish and sharks, then, the development of gills from the embryonic arches is more or less direct: these embryonic features simply enlarge without much change to form the adult breathing apparatus. [75]

Sure, just add a few nerves, blood vessels, bone and cartilage and poof, there you have gills.

Next, Coyne begins immediately to refer to the grooves between the branchial arches, in human embryos, as gill slits. But humans don't have gills as adults. Humans never have gills at any stage. So there is no basis for referring to the grooves as "gill slits" aside from the silly evolutionary mandate that the branchial arches are an evolutionary leftover that today just happen to form structures such as the middle ear, larynx, Eustachian tube, and arteries and nerves.

So Coyne interprets the evidence according to the theory he thinks is true, and then presents the ludicrous interpretation as powerful evidence for the theory. I would have been astonished if I hadn't seen such circular reasoning so many times before in the evolution genre. There are other problems with this section, which I describe here. Once again evolution makes a mockery of science.

I cited the Google books version, so that others can simply read the chapter and see for themselves what Coyne writes. I wonder why you removed my link?

Coyne compares embryonic development in fishes and sharkes with the development in other vertebrates. In fish, the embryonic branchial arches correspond to the gill arches in adult fish. The embryonic branchial arteries build the arteries that supply the gills of the adult fish. Embryonic cartilage or bone in the branchial arches stays in place and builds the gill supporting structures of the adult fish.

Human and other vertebrate embryos start out with branchial arteries like fish. But during embryonic development they are rearranged. Some dissappear, some move around. In humans, the cartilage/bones that start to built in the branchial arches just like in fish embryos do not stay in place, they move (mostly) to the head and built structures such as part of the inner ear or the lower jaw, taking their blood supply and nerves with them. Human embryos do not start out as "little humans" with an arrangement of embryonic features that just stay in place and develop to the adult features as happens in fish. Why is that so? Why do have human embryos a tail that then dissappears? Why do e.g. dolphin embryos have limb buds that never build legs in the adult animal? These are facts that need a scientific explanation. You're playing semantic games (uh oh, he said GILLS) but the facts stay the same however those similar structures are called. That all vertebrates have a common ancestor happens to explain it.

Cornelius Hunter: Coyne begins immediately to refer to the grooves between the branchial arches, in human embryos, as gill slits. But humans don't have gills as adults. Humans never have gills at any stage. So there is no basis for referring to the grooves as "gill slits" aside from the silly evolutionary mandate that the branchial arches are an evolutionary leftover that today just happens to form structures such as the middle ear, larynx, Eustachian tube, and arteries and nerves.

They're often called "gill slits." It's not the best term, but it's a common term. You're making nothing more than a semantic argument.

Semantics: The term "gill slits" is also sometimes used to refer to the folds of skin in the pharyngeal region in all vertebrate embryos, including those of humans. However, the term gill suggests a particular anatomical structure or function, and the "gill slits" in amniotes have neither. Therefore, a better modifier is pharyngeal, as in pharyngeal arches or pharyngeal slits.

Cornelius Hunter: vertebrates simply do not begin development looking like embryonic fish. This is what evolutionary theory predicts, and what evolutionists want to see. Yes there are similarities, but this is yet another case of theory-driven, rather than data-driven, thinking.

Vertebrate embryos *do* resemble one another during the phylotypic stage. It's a direct observation, not a "case of theory-driven" thinking. We may as well post this again. Three mammals that are quite distinct and recognizable in adult form. What are they?

The point is, of course, that it is very difficult to tell them apart. The embyros have very similar structures, and their incremental divergence during development fits the nested hierarchy, exactly as expected of an evolutionary process.

===They're often called "gill slits." It's not the best term, but it's a common term. You're making nothing more than a semantic argument. ===

No, that would be the evolutionist, not me. The reason they are called *gill* slits is the fault of evolutionary theory. It is not an random mistake that just happened to be accepted and widely used by evolutionists. It is a theory-driven description.

For an evolutionist to then represent this as strong evidence for evolution is circular--it's an abuse of science.

Not surprisingly evolutionists never admit to this, but insist it is valid reasoning and strong evidence. So we're at an impasse because evolutionists simply make undefendable assertions, will not acknowledge evidential failures, mandate their idea is a fact, and blame anyone who doesn't agree for abusing science.

The fact that they resemble gills is sufficient reason to colloquially call them "gill slits" — or is it just as wrong to say our ears contain a "hammer bone", which at no point in its development functions as a hammer? What about our "canine" teeth, which, of course, do not come from dogs, as any evolutionist can tell you.

We call large groups of stars "galaxies" — does this compel astronomers to claim that they are in fact made out of milk? Please.

So JLT has clearly demonstrated how anyone can go to google books and see for themselves how Coyne fairly defines the terms he is using, and proceeds.

That pretty much settles it for me.

I think, then, we should not focus on what the pharyngeal arches resemble, and in fact what they are and do. On the molecular level, arches across vertebrates share similar patterning by key genes. My favorite example is that the calcium regulating molecular pathways have been co-opted from gills to form the parathyroid gland. So 'gill slits' might not be that misleading-instead of going on to form gills, they turn inside, and form the parathyroid. Both regulate extracellular calcium with similar mechanisms.

This also forms a nice case study for why stages in development do remain conserved-the patterning is important, then the tissues go on their separate ways, but with the tell-tale sign of using ancestral pathways and functions.

"Studies in mice have demonstrated that the transcription factor Gcm-2 is a key regulator of parathyroid development. The expression of this gene is restricted to the parathyroids, and if this gene is mutated the parathyroids fail to form (Kim et al. 1998; Gunther et al. 2000; Gordon et al. 2001). Recently, we have exploited the rigid association between Gcm-2 and the parathyroid and conducted a phylogenetic analysis to gain insight into how the parathyroid evolved (Okabe & Graham, 2004). Interestingly, we found that it is not only tetrapods that possess the Gcm-2 gene but that this gene is also present in dipnoi and teleost fish, as well as in chondrichthyans (Fig. 5). We also found that Gcm-2 in zebrafish and dogfish, as in amniotes, is expressed in the pharyngeal pouches, and the structures that derive from the pouches, the internal gill buds in fish and the parathyroids in tetrapods (Fig. 5). We also tested the function of Gcm-2 in zebrafish, and showed that this gene is required for the elaboration of the internal gill buds from the pharyngeal pouches. Finally, through searching the zebrafish and fugu genome sequences we have identified PTH-encoding genes, and we show that these genes are expressed in the gills, as is the calcium-sensing receptor. Thus, both the tetrapod parathyroid and the gills of fish contribute to the regulation of extracellular calcium levels. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the parathyroid gland evolved as a result of the transformation of the gills into the parathyroid glands of tetrapods and the transition from an aquatic to a terrestrial environment. This interpretation would also explain the positioning of the parathyroid gland within the pharynx in the tetrapod body. Were the parathyroid gland to have emerged de novo with the evolution of the tetrapods it could, as an endocrine organ, have been placed anywhere in the body and still exert its effect."

I do believe all vertebrartes do pass throught this stage. But the point I assumed Zachriel was making is that they look a lot alike. That's the whole point of his exercise of having us try to determine which species they represent. I'm wondering if they he picked those that look more alike.

Cornelius Hunter: For an evolutionist to then represent this as strong evidence for evolution is circular--it's an abuse of science.

The evidence is the nested hierarchy of embryonics, morphology, genomics, and fossils in time. In fact, embryonics can predict the fossil evidence, such as the existence of intermediates in the evolution of the mammalian middle ear.

natschuster: I'm thinking that maybe Zachiel is being very selective in his coice of embryos. He picked examples that are similar, and ignored examples that aren't. I'm just suggesting the possibility.

It is a fact that vertebrate embryos do resemble one another during the phylotypic stage of development. The examples were all mammals, so the resemblance is even more pronounced.

JLT: Why is that so? Why do have human embryos a tail that then dissappears? Why do e.g. dolphin embryos have limb buds that never build legs in the adult animal? These are facts that need a scientific explanation.

Jeff: These are facts that HAVE an explanation if, indeed, events are caused. But thus far, we don't have a testable evolutionary explanation of how the DNA sequences that serve as necessary conditions of such events came to be. It is not enough to say they mutated into existence. That is the evolutionary hypothesis, not a testable explanation. The fact that you, like every one else, believes certain untestable hypotheses to be true is irrelevant to science.

I expect he did. But given CH's position (his religious faith, his position at a creationist-based Bible college), excuse me I'm a little skeptical that there isn't some confirmation bias creeping in here. Did he read it with an open mind, or did he read it with an intent to shred it apart on pre-conceived pre-suppositions? He will of course deny it, but none of us are immune to confirmation bias; from a critical thinking perspective one has to look at the source and take that into consideration when considering a claim. It may mind CH's view are tainted by his own religious beliefs and affiliations; not that what he says doesn't have merit, but needs to be weighed very carefully.

CH likes to say that evolutionists MUST believe evolution it is true. But is not just as likely that CH MUST believe evolution is NOT true?

It's also interesting that Jerry Coyne seems to have zero interest in responding to CH, despite the numerous articles CH has posted that directly attack Coyne's books.

It's also interesting that Jerry Coyne seems to have zero interest in responding to CH, despite the numerous articles CH has posted that directly attack Coyne's books.

That's because CH hasn't produced anything worth responding too. Just loads of empty rhetoric and blithering diatribes showing how little CH understands of actual evolutionary biology. While others are out there doing real science, using evolutionary theory to further our knowledge and help people, CH just plays armchair quarterback and slings his mud.

@Fil: I just did a simple Google search of "All vertebrates begin development looking like embryonic fish because we all descended from a fishlike" (without quotation marks) and the forth hit was from Google books with all pages from 63-91 present.

There are thousands of mammal species. If only three are similar while the rest are different then that would proof the opposite of what Zachriel is attempting to demonstrate. Picking the three out of thousands that are the most similar proves nothing.

Then all you would have to do is find a single mammal embryo which does not look like this to prove Zachriel's point on phylotypic development hollow. Can you do this? Are you even willing to try? And what conclusions will you draw if your search turns out to be a fruitless one?

As previously requested, any time you see the term "nested hierarchy," please substitute "Pattern X," an ordered set such that each subset is contained within its superset. That way everyone else can use the usual term, but you won't become confused over semantics.

Joe G: The 3 embryos you linked to are not that similar.

Everyone can see they are much more similar than their adult forms. By the way, you never did answer, how do you distinguish the dolphin from the other embryos?

Zachriel:As previously requested, any time you see the term "nested hierarchy," please substitute "Pattern X," an ordered set such that each subset is contained within its superset. That way everyone else can use the usual term, but you won't become confused over semantics.

Shut up Zach.

You don't know what a nested hierarchy is.

You tried to tell me that a patrilineage is a paternal family tree is a nested hierarchy.

Yet that "idea" was shot down.

No you run to other blogs spewing your same ignorance.

The 3 embryos you linked to are not that similar.

Everyone can see they are much more similar than their adult forms.

Maybe that is what you see.

However I know if everyone were as familiar with the embryos as they are with the adult forms then everyone could easily tell them apart.

The old, discredited equation of evolution with progress has been largely superseded by the almost whimsical notion that evolution requires mistakes to bring about specieswide adaptation. Natural selection requires variation, and variation requires mutations- those accidental deletions or additions of material deep within the DNA of our cells. In an increasingly slick, fast-paced, automated, impersonal world, one in which we are constantly being reminded of the narrow margin for error, it is refreshing to be reminded that mistakes are a powerful and necessary creative force. A few important but subtle “mistakes,” in evolutionary terms, may save the human race. -page 10 ending the intro.

That Jerry Coyne felt the need to bring out "gill slits" (which really aren't gill slits) as supporting evidence for the "fact" of evolution shows how desperate he is trying to prove the title of his book.

If evolutionists would just step back from their theory a bit they would see that the "gill slits" are evidence only because they want it to be evidence.

Evolutionists are under the false pretense that a Designer would need to create all the animals completely different from scratch.

It is very shallow thinking. Somehow common features in various animals disproves design. Why? Common features and parts are inherit in various human designs... cars and airplanes have some common parts and features that are adapted.

Why do evolutionists insist that the Designer life could not have done likewise? What we see in animal life is some common features along with strikingly different ones as well. Mutation and natural selection is not adequate to produce these striking differences other than in the imaginations of evolutionists.

Why do evolutionists insist that the Designer life could not have done likewise?

Despite what Cornelius may say, we don't. But there is no way to say what a Designer would or would not have done. So the question is moot. To make it a scientific hypothesis we have to be able to presume the intentions and methods of this proposed designer. But if we are to sit back and say 'He/she/it could have done ANYTHING in ANY WAY', then there is simply nothing science can say on the matter. It is not science because it is not testable.

It is very shallow thinking. Somehow common features in various animals disproves design. Why?

No, it is not that it disproves design. Evolution is not based on disproving design. But common emryological features support the theory of evolution. They do not support the design hypothesis.

Common features and parts are inherit in various human designs... cars and airplanes have some common parts and features that are adapted.

You cannot trace nested hierarchies with cars and aeroplanes. Features are swapped, mixed and matched onto various models of cars all the time. This does not happen in nature. If a species develops a new feature, it always has to be re-invented. This is exactly the kind of thing we see in designed objects which we do NOT see in nature.

Evolutionists are under the false pretense that a Designer would need to create all the animals completely different from scratch.

It is very shallow thinking. Somehow common features in various animals disproves design

Er, no, that is not the argument. The argument is that we have known natural processes that produce the observed nested hierarchies without the need for a Supernatural Designer. There is no reason at all for an omnipotent Designer to produce the nested hierarchies we see, but natural evolution - descent with modification- absolutely requires it.

In point of fact is it impossible to disprove a Designer, because no matter how much evidence for natural causes is gathered the claim can always be made the Designer made it look that way on purpose. ID is not falsifiable, which is another reason why it's not science.

All we have to say is that we would expect to see traces that some designer left behind.

But by keeping the designer and his methods deliberately vague, ANY evidence may or may not be a trace of design.

With archaeology we analyze the artifacts to make determinations about the intentions and methods.

the same with forensics.

Why do people here keep comparing ID with archaeology and forensics? They are not equivalent for many reasons. Archaeology and forensics are scientific - they posit natural agents designing and constructing artifacts by specified methods. ID does not do this. This is not an incidental point. It is a big one.

Nice bald assertion.

Are you contesting it?

Sue you can.

Ya see you start with "transportation"- cars would fall under "land transportation" and planes under "air transportation".

I'm not good with cars so this will have to be a vague analogy, but certain features once invented can be superimposed onto all models of car. Take CD players - when CD's became popular, all car manufacturers could simply put the same feature - the CD player - in their cars. It is not the case that each specific make of car developed their own CD player independantly of each other. The same is true of swish new batteries and tyres and whatever else goes into making a car - every model is built from scratch so each manufacturer can mix and match swanky new features onto their new models.

This is not what we see in nature. By the time bats had come about, birds had been flying perfectly well for millions of years. But no-one just stuck a bird's wing onto a mammal to create a bat. No, bats had to come up with their own wing - they had to reinvent it.

And with evolution we would expect to see a gradual blending of characteristics- such as seen with reptile-like mammals and mammal-like reptiles.

And with archaeology it is only after analyzing the artifact can they try to figure out how it was made.

And that is how it is with ID.

Are you contesting it?

Absolutely.

Sue you can.

Ya see you start with "transportation"- cars would fall under "land transportation" and planes under "air transportation".

I'm not good with cars so this will have to be a vague analogy, but certain features once invented can be superimposed onto all models of car. Take CD players - when CD's became popular, all car manufacturers could simply put the same feature - the CD player - in their cars. It is not the case that each specific make of car developed their own CD player independantly of each other. The same is true of swish new batteries and tyres and whatever else goes into making a car - every model is built from scratch so each manufacturer can mix and match swanky new features onto their new models.

You don't use CD players as a defining characteristic.

This is not what we see in nature. By the time bats had come about, birds had been flying perfectly well for millions of years. But no-one just stuck a bird's wing onto a mammal to create a bat. No, bats had to come up with their own wing - they had to reinvent it.

As far as the evidence says bats have always been bats and birds have always been birds.

And with evolution we would expect to see a gradual blending of characteristics- such as seen with reptile-like mammals and mammal-like reptiles.

Elaborate. What do you mean?

If mammals evolved from reptiles then somewhere along the line there would have been a mix of characteristics- ie a mammal-like reptile and reptile-like mammals.

Joe G: "All we have to say is that we would expect to see traces that some designer left behind.

With archaeology we analyze the artifacts to make determinations about the intentions and methods.

the same with forensics."

Joe, can you explain how this would work with ID? For instance, is there an example of how intentions and methods have been derived from an ID feature (e.g., the putative IC features of the flaggelum?).

Joe G: the first is easily recognizeable as a cetacean- most likely a dolphin...

You said it was "easily recognizeable {sic}" You have yet to be able to justify that statement. Everyone can see that the pharyngulas resemble each other more than the adult forms. The dolphin embryo even has hind limb buds.

Give me an example of a feature found in nature which we have, or possibly could, unambiguously call 'designed' or 'non-designed'.

If mother nature can account for it we don't infer a designer did it.

But a lack of proof that mother nature did it is not evidence that a designer did it.

ID doesn't posit a supernatural designer.

Doesn't it? So this designer has to operate WITHIN the laws of nature? This is a designer who does NOT perform miracles?

And how are you using the term "natural agents"?

Agents which are subject to natural laws, and cannot violate them.

(Me) Are you contesting it?

(You) Absolutely.

According to the theory of evolution, new features do not appear out of thin air. They are formed by honing existing gene sequences in existing creatures.

The 'gill arches' of fish embryos develop to form the breathing apparatus of the fish in its adult form. When we look at the human embryo, we see that the human breathing apparatus - parts of the body which are directly equivocal to those of fish - are formed from exactly the same embryological features, even though the end product differs vastly. That supports the theory of evolution.

You don't use CD players as a defining characteristic.

My point is that you cannot form nested hierarchies with cars.

Imagine a modern Ford, which has a CD player. A modern Vauxhall has a CD player too. In this way, the cars are more similar than they are to the Fords and Vauxhalls of ten (or whatever) years ago, which both had cassette players instead. So in this respect we would class the two modern cars as more 'closely realted' than the older models. See what a nonsense this would quickly become?

As far as the evidence says bats have always been bats and birds have always been birds.

Ritchie:Give me an example of a feature found in nature which we have, or possibly could, unambiguously call 'designed' or 'non-designed'.

Stonehenge- designed- giant's causeway- not designed.

But a lack of proof that mother nature did it is not evidence that a designer did it.

true and that is why a specification must also be met.

IOW specification plus very low probability = the design inference.

ID doesn't posit a supernatural designer.

Doesn't it?

No it doesn't.

So this designer has to operate WITHIN the laws of nature? This is a designer who does NOT perform miracles?

Miracles? Like living organisms spontaneously arising from non-living matter?

Agents which are subject to natural laws, and cannot violate them.

But natural laws cannot account for themselves.

According to the theory of evolution, new features do not appear out of thin air. They are formed by honing existing gene sequences in existing creatures.

except when they do appear out of thin air.

Also there isn't any genetic data which suppoorts the claim.

The 'gill arches' of fish embryos develop to form the breathing apparatus of the fish in its adult form. When we look at the human embryo, we see that the human breathing apparatus - parts of the body which are directly equivocal to those of fish - are formed from exactly the same embryological features, even though the end product differs vastly. That supports the theory of evolution.

It also supports common design and convergence.

As far as the evidence says bats have always been bats and birds have always been birds.

Joe: "As I said the only way to determine a method is by studying the design."

Fair enough...but is there an example of this having been done with an ID-derived artificat such as the flagellum. Or are you going to tell me that this is (conveniently) out of the purvey of ID again?

That is why darwin said if all the transitionals were still alive we couldn't construct the pattern.

If all transitionals were alive we could not construst the pattern because there would be no cut-off point no distinguish one species from another.

It is like drawing a line on a very long wall which is bright red at one end and bright orange at the other. Along the line, then red slowly gets more and more orange until it finally reaches the far end. Where exactly would we draw a line bisecting this one and say 'Everything on one side of the line is red and everything on the other is orange'?

As I said the only way to determine a method is by studying the design.

Janfeld:Fair enough...but is there an example of this having been done with an ID-derived artificat such as the flagellum. Or are you going to tell me that this is (conveniently) out of the purvey of ID again?

It is a question of resources janfeld.

Right now IDists are too busy making the case for design.

And as I said seeing living organisms are far more advanced than anything we have created it will be some time before we can figure out the methodology used.

Ritchie:If all transitionals were alive we could not construst the pattern because there would be no cut-off point no distinguish one species from another.

It is like drawing a line on a very long wall which is bright red at one end and bright orange at the other. Along the line, then red slowly gets more and more orange until it finally reaches the far end. Where exactly would we draw a line bisecting this one and say 'Everything on one side of the line is red and everything on the other is orange'?

Do you see the problem now?

It's your problem Ritchie.

Just a bat without echolocation.

So a flying rodent then? A shrew with wings?

Just a bat without echlocation.

And there isn't any evidence that dinosaurs can evolve into birds.

There's plenty.

nothing in genetics and nothing testable.

With nested hierarchies you cannot have a blend of characteristics.

You can have a series of individual species showing a progression of characteristics.

Joe G: With nested hierarchies you cannot have a blend of characteristics.

As usual with ID, it's all semantics and word-play. Joe G thinks he understands nested hierarchies and will never budge from his interpretation.

In this situation, the usual way to make progress is to carefully define the pattern of interest, call it "Pattern X" an ordered set such that each subset is contained within its superset. But Joe G is not capable of that level of abstraction.

So one can argue phylogenetics all day long, but he can't understand the point because he barely understands what constitutes a set, much less a nested hierarchy, or the components of a valid argument.

#1 Nested hierarchies exposed#2 The supernatural red herring shot dead... again... and again#3 The design inference can only be materialistic, start to finish.#4 Profiling the designer can only be done by studying its artifacts#5 Thorton has been severely poked by my reference to HIM...

Thank you for exposing all these and more. The problem is that I am sure you have done this before and still these fools argue the arguments that has been destroyed right in front of their eyes.

There is so many red herrings about ID that they just have to cling to in order for them to justify their personal position. It must be unsettling if reality does not comport with your view of science.

And as I said seeing living organisms are far more advanced than anything we have created it will be some time before we can figure out the methodology used."

OK. But does it ever puzzle you that the Designer (supernatural or not) could simply tell us if it/he/she wished?

Even more puzzling if you think that Designer is the Christan God (as CH does and most IDers)? Why is He being so secretive? It's not unreasonable to expect that an entity that could achieve such design would also be quite good at communications too?

Michael: "There is so many red herrings about ID that they just have to cling to in order for them to justify their personal position. It must be unsettling if reality does not comport with your view of science."

LOL! Actually I've been severely amused. It never fails - every time one of you IDiots start in with the approved party line "ID is not about religion or the supernatural, no siree bob!" you just can't keep the story straight. You always have to start babbling about the Designer being your Christian God...ALWAYS.

Joe G, to Thorton: "And I am still waiting for you to acknowledge that you were wrong and I was right about genetic accidents."

Joe, I don't know how many times you need to hear it before you get it, but no evolutionist believes that evolution is a random process. Selection is in fact the *opposite* of randomness. You are equating 'unguided' with random. Gravity is unguided; that is, no intelligence has to step in and direct objects on how to move, but it is anything but random. *Elements* of natural selection are random, but that doesn't make the whole process 'random' any more than the opening coin toss makes an entire game of football 'random'.

Joe G, to Thorton: "You don't even understand the position you are trying to defend!"

Joe, when you are convinced that you know your opponent's position better than they do, that is most often an indicator that you are mired deeply in straw man arguments; that you have constructed a caricature of their views and are attacking this distortion instead.

You wrote:"If all transitionals were alive we could not construst the pattern because there would be no cut-off point no distinguish one species from another."

Notice the words "could not".

Then you wrote "Not at all. It is just more difficult to put into neat little boxes"

Notice the words "more difficult".

Which of your posts is correct.

They are both correct. When you have species like today that have had time to become morphologically distinct it is easy to divide them into logical non-arbitrary groups based on that morphology. If instead of distinct species you had a smooth continuum of change then you'd have no simple demarcation line with which to identify logical groups. Any dividing line between groupings you attempted would be arbitrary. It would be like trying to identify where yellow stops and orange starts on the light spectrum.

"If instead of distinct species you had a smooth continuum of change then you'd have no simple demarcation line with which to identify logical groups."

So you guys are more concerned about making things easy for identification/cataloguing purposes than you are for actual proof. What will happen to your 'demarcations' if you continue to dig for fossils and get a whole range of transitional fossils? Your current 'demarcation' will go out the window and you'll be stuck. I guess it's time for paleontologists to look for another gig before you mess yourselves up.

I hope this less is more thing is a passing fad.

And I tried that Google thing again, it doesn't like me. I tried the search under 'branchial arches' and that page said no preview. The other way didnt lead me to anything as well.

"LOL! Actually I've been severely amused. It never fails - every time one of you IDiots start in with the approved party line "ID is not about religion or the supernatural, no siree bob!" you just can't keep the story straight. You always have to start babbling about the Designer being your Christian God...ALWAYS."

Fil: What will happen to your 'demarcations' if you continue to dig for fossils and get a whole range of transitional fossils? Your current 'demarcation' will go out the window and you'll be stuck.

Diverging lines of descent form a tree pattern, regardless of the number of branchings. The characteristics thereof form a nested hierarchy, within the *resolution* of the rate of those changes.

Darwin: Extinction has only separated groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished from other groups, as all would blend together by steps as fine as those between the finest existing varieties, nevertheless a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.

Fil: So you guys are more concerned about making things easy for identification/cataloguing purposes than you are for actual proof.

No Fil, you're still unclear on the concept. The evidence for the transitions between species is still there. The more data points you have, the more evidence you have that the transition is real but the more the identification for cataloging purposes becomes arbitrary. Those two statements aren't contradictory.

What will happen to your 'demarcations' if you continue to dig for fossils and get a whole range of transitional fossils? Your current 'demarcation' will go out the window and you'll be stuck. I guess it's time for paleontologists to look for another gig before you mess yourselves up.

It won't go out the window, but it would make how we define each species to be more arbitrary.

There is a whole field of science that deals with digital sampling of an analog signal, which is what finding discrete fossil samples from the continuous lineage of living creatures is.

And I tried that Google thing again, it doesn't like me. I tried the search under 'branchial arches' and that page said no preview. The other way didnt lead me to anything as well.

Hmmm...try this link here. Then go to the window "search in this book" and enter 'brachial arches'. Works for me every time. If that still doesn't fly for you, I'm at a loss.

If all IDCers were as honest as you there wouldn't be a problem. But that would kill the little shell game the rest of them are playing of trying to sneak "non-religious" ID into public school science classes.

In fact, if you can find it, there was a wonderful programme on TV a few months ago called Animals In the Womb (I'm pretty sure) which traced the development between four animals. One was a wasp and the other three were all vertibrates, I think a penguin and two mammals. Not toally sure. Anyway, what struck me whilst I was watching it was how similar the three vertibrate embryos were for much of their development - which was especially marked when compared to the wasp.

If you can find it somewhere on the web, I heartily recommend watching it.

Then you wrote "Not at all. It is just more difficult to put into neat little boxes"

Notice the words "more difficult".

Which of your posts is correct.

Technically it would be possible, through in practical terms it would probably be beyond us. It would probably involve little short of the categorization of every single animal that has ever lived. No small feat.

But this is not stopping us from digging up fossils! That would be silly. Fossilization is a very rare event. Only a very small percentage of every species who has ever lived will be represented in the fossil record. In practical terms we do not ever have to worry about having too many fossils. There simply won't be that many.

If we had every organism that ever lived, we could still recognize the pattern. Just take a broad sampling, and you'll see they fit a nested hierarchy — unless, that is, they are very closely related, in which case, we can still place them within the larger taxonomic grouping, but perhaps not with the fine gradation once we get close to the species or population level.

Indeed, that's a common problem anyway. That's why it can be difficult to tell a fossil of Homo sapiens from a closely related hominid; whether a new bird is really a new species, or just a variety; or when to divide a species across time.

Zachriel:If we had every organism that ever lived, we could still recognize the pattern.

Bald assertion

Just take a broad sampling, and you'll see they fit a nested hierarchy

They shouldn't.

Ya see ancestor-descendent relationships form non-nested hierarchies.

Joe G thinks he understands nested hierarchies and will never budge from his interpretation.

Nice projection.

So one can argue phylogenetics all day long, but he can't understand the point because he barely understands what constitutes a set, much less a nested hierarchy, or the components of a valid argument.

And I hope that the designer isn't that "God" or their depiction is wrong."

You are an exception I think. CH has made it quite clear he thinks the designer is his god. And of course most of the ID camp think the same (notable exceptions are Wells and Berlinski among the major players).

Joe G: "Well there is that collection of books we call "The Bible"..."

Indeed. It has done such a marvelous job of elucidating and clarifying theology that not only did people in the first few centuries after it was written kill each other other doctrinal differences, but today we have some 35,000 cults, sects and denominations - many with very radically different interpretations. It has even been said that early Christians would be considered heretical by today's current flavor of Christianity. Of course it's all our fault for not being able to interpret it correctly!

Which is quite odd really when you consider God was quite capable of doing better, as putatively demonstrated in the Torah with its detailed and explicit instructions.

"Nested Hierarchies" provide support for evolution? This is another example of cherry picking support.

What about all the species that clearly do not "fit" into the so-called nested hierarchies (Platypus, etc)?

There is a great deal of mixing and matching of parts that look similar between a great number of species that are supposedly very distantly related. This is not what nested hierarchy is about. Evolutionists are not as interested in pointing these out like they do the ones that fit their theory.

What about the so-called Darwinian tree of life that is turning into the bush of life because of all trunks and loose ends?

Nested hierarchies support evolution because evolutionists see the subjective evidence they want to see while ignoring that which does not fit.

Janfeld:You are an exception I think. CH has made it quite clear he thinks the designer is his god. And of course most of the ID camp think the same (notable exceptions are Wells and Berlinski among the major players).

And dawkins has made it clear that the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory.

okay from your reference it says, quote, "The time and place of monotreme origin is still largely unknown" Sounds like another "fit nicely into the tree of life" until you actually look at the details. Details, details.

"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."

Joe G: As for "selection" that is just a fancy way of saying whatever, survives, survives.

Not quite. We can often infer natural selection from changes in a population, such as when a trait is fixed faster than would be expected through drift alone, but natural selection is actually the causal relationship between heritable traits and reproductive advantage.

It talks about genetic similarities- and those can be accounted for via common design and convergence.

What *couldn't* be accounted for via common design and convergence?

And dawkins has made it clear that the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory.

It is nothing of the sort, and Dawkins never claims it is. It is simply a theory which does not NECESSITATE or INVOKE a God. Just as gravity explains why things fall down without necessitating or invoking a God to push them.

Also worth noting is that NO scientific theory invokes supernatural agents. If they did, they wouldn't be scientific.

As for "selection" that is just a fancy way of saying whatever, survives, survives.

Zachriel:Not quite.

OK but whatever survives, survives.

We can often infer natural selection from changes in a population, such as when a trait is fixed faster than would be expected through drift alone, but natural selection is actually the causal relationship between heritable traits and reproductive advantage.

Dawkins said it is.Just watch "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".Also Provine says the same thing.

Dawkins has made it clear he was duped into appearing in that film. It is Creationist propaganda with the lowest level of credibility.

But Dawkins is a prolific writer, and more than locquacous on the topic of evolution and atheism. Surely you can find a quote directly from him saying what you claim he says, rather than viewing him through the warped and distorted lens of a propaganda film?

Show me a link where he explicitly makes the point that the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory. I want to see it in black and white!

Meanwhile take a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxwBtfkv9ns

Vast differences.

Elaborate. Like what?

That is false.

Science cares about one thing- reality.

Nope. Science is about the application of the scientific method. Nothing else.

Imagine I have a mystery, and write all the possible explanations for that mystery on post-it notes, which I then stick to a (very large) wall and blindly throw a dart to randomly pick an answer. Now, it just so happens that this answer I have selected is, in fact, the correct one. So I have arrived at the correct solution. But was my method of arriving at the right answer scientific? No. Even if it lead me to the right answer, I was not performing science.

If you are not applying the scientific method, you are not doing science. And you cannot apply the scientific method if you invoke supernatural agents.

The linear, stepwise representation of the process of science is simplified, but it does get at least one thing right. It captures the core logic of science: testing ideas with evidence.

This is EXACTLY why supernatural agents are not scientific - they cannot be tested.

Morover, you ignored my dart-and-post-it note example. It led me to the right answer. Is it therefore science?

Also Dawkins wasn't duped into anything- dawkins is a dupe...

What a totally vaccuous response. How old are you?

And if the ToE isn't an atheistic theory then why did dawkins say it enabled him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist?

Ahh, now that is not the same thing, is it?

The thing about God is that He can be called on to explain absolutely any mystery about the world. So if you are an atheist this (cheap and meaningless) explanation disappears, leaving the mysteries there again.

I imagine what Dawkins meant was that ToE explains the mystery left behind when you let go of the notion of a god as the designer of the natural world.

ToE simply does the job of explaining the evidence - without the need to invoke a designer. But that is not the same as necessitating the absence of a God. There are plenty of evolutionists who nevertheless believe in God. ToE does not require an atheistic world view.

RICHARD DAWKINS: The implication you make is that there’s something about religion which is personal and upon which evidence doesn’t have any bearing. Now, as I scientist I care passionately about the truth. I think that the existence of a supreme being – a supernatural supreme being – is a scientific issue. Either there is a God or there isn’t. Either there are gods or there are no gods. That is a scientific issue. Yes, it’s a supremely important scientific question. If the universe was created by an intelligence, then we are looking at an entirely different kind of scientific theory than if the universe came into existence by natural means. If God or gods had something to do with the creation of life, then we’re looking at a totally different kind of biology.

It does the "job" with smoke and mirrors as there isn't any evidence to support that claim.

The fossils and DNA samples which make up the fossil and the genetic records are facts. That they fall into patterns is an observation - evidence. The theory of evolution explains that evidence in a way that is testable (ie, scientific).

There are entire scientific journals devoted entirely to the scienctific research on the topic of evolution, such as:

http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0014-3820

Every issue they publish many articles evidencing evolution. Take a look for yourself.

A scientific QUESTION. We can ASK whether there is a God. But we cannot simply invoke one (that is, assume one) in our scientific theories.

Neither support the theory of evolution...

Yes they do.

What process did you use to make that determination?

We cannot prove that volcanoes are not angry. How do you show a volcano feels no anger? The question is ridiculous. You assume the volcano feels no anger unless shown otherwise. Likewise you assume the processes which guide the world are undirected unless shown otherwise.

Also, from the video you linked to, I suggest you go back and watch it again. Within the first two minutes, the very first question is 'Can one accept evolution and still believe in God' and Dawkins says categorically yes.

Further reaserch may take your 'observational evidence' and toss it in the trash.'

A fair point. Science is always subject to later revision. A discovery tomorrow could falsify the entire theory of evolution.

On the other hand, a discovery tomorrow could also falsify the entire theory of gravity. Does that mean we should consider the theory of gravity to be tenuous and weak today?

Is the fact that our scientific theories are open and tentative (I don't think I've got the right word... what's that word for something that we accept until shown to be wrong?) a strength or a weakness?

They are not open. They do not look for a way to infer design. ID people had to open up whole other intitutes for that. If it was open they would at least explore that possibility until it was exhausted so they could say they tried. Instead, it is simply dismissed. So I would say weakness.

By your use of the word 'neither', I assume you meant 'ID does *NOT* argue...'

And I accept that. But surely ID does not argue that everything on Earth came about by entirely natural processes *without* the intervention of some 'intelligent designer'? Surely this is the key assertion of ID? And it is this assertion which is totally unevidenced, unnecessary and unhelpful.

Change occurs.

I agree there.

But there isn't any evidence for Universal Common Descent.

How about the fact that all life on Earth is made from the same DNA code? Is that just a co-incidence?

So it is perfectly scientific to invoke the supernatural to explain mysteries? When faced with a puzzle it is perfectly SCIENTIFIC to say 'fairies did it', or 'it was magic'?

It is no more scientific to invoke God than it is to invoke fairies, no more scientific to invoke miracles than to invoke magic.

How can they when there isn't any genetic data that links to the changes required?

There is plenty. I suggest you study genomics - the comparative study of genomes of organisms.

IOW just because you can reject ID then it was via blind, undirected processes.

IOW you really don't care about science.

Let's just ignore the fact that the last is a total non-sequitur, as well as being totally absurd! But I never called ID the product of blind, undirected processes. My problem with ID is that it centres around the intervention of an Intelligent Designer - something we have no evidence for.

I am saying that the mutations are accidents and selection is blind.

Some people say that natural selection is the opposite of chance but they never support the claim.

Yes, the mutations are random, but that's only half the story. Natural selction then filters the random mutations so the beneficial ones propegate and the disadvantageous ones do not. In this way, beneficial mutations are spread throughout the gene pool and disadvantageous ones are removed. So only beneficial mutations accumulate. That is evolution.

They are not open. They do not look for a way to infer design. ID people had to open up whole other intitutes for that. If it was open they would at least explore that possibility until it was exhausted so they could say they tried.

And how exactly do you propose scientists do that? How do we infer design? What tests can be done to show that an outside consciousness deliberately created or tinkered with life?

Let's take the idea of life being created by God (some say 'an intelligent designer' but you said you are comfortable with openly saying you think this designer is God) as a hypothesis. What can be done to evidence this? What experiments do you propose?

And if you find yourself a little stumped here, you are far from alone. No-one I am aware of within the ID movement seems able to answer these questions, let alone actually go out and DO some research as scientists should - and this despite the fact that there is enough money available for ID proponents to fund such research to make a king blush.

What scientists object to is accepting assertions without evidence. That is called faith. Religious faith, in this case...

If you want to know the position of monotremes within the tree of life, then the monotremes occupy the earliest still-living branch of mammals. That is to say, the earliest split along the branch which leads to mammals is the one between the monotremes on one side, and the marsupial and placental mammals on the other.

What's the problem there?

Monotremes exhibit a combination of reptilian and mammalian genetic characters and this totally contradicts the prediction of nested hierarchies.

It does no such thing.

The distinguishing feature of mammals is mammary glands. Mammals feed their young milk which they themselves produce. That is their distinguishing feature.

Platyupusesesusuess (and the other family of monotremes - the echidnas) simply branched away from the other mammals after the mammary gland can about, but before other features, such as growing young in a womb or external pouch. The common ancestor between monotremes and the other mammals probably still laid eggs, like reptiles do. Though this habit was changed in the other mammals, it was retained in the monotremes.

That is exactly what nested hierarchies are all about. There is no contradiction here.

"And how exactly do you propose scientists do that? How do we infer design? What tests can be done to show that an outside consciousness deliberately created or tinkered with life?"

IDers have made predictions that have been shown accurate, ie. junk dna. They make further predictions concerning the future. Inferring design is not hard. In I like the comment made by Dr Francis Crick when he wrote: 'Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.'

1)There may be evidence but you are unwilling to look for it.(This is you.)

2)There may be evidence but you are unwilling to look for it. Unwittingly in opther fields you find evidence but your prejudice against the idea blinds you to it.(Probably you too.)

3)There is no evidence.(Your claim to this is invalid since you fail at the first two.)

Bald assertions and vaccuous rhetoric.

But if I am wrong, please demonstrate me to be so. What evidence is there of design or outside intervention in nature? I assure you, you will win international renown if you can produce solid, empirical evidence of such.

IDers have made predictions that have been shown accurate

What predictions, how do those predictions support ID, and what evidence showed to be accurate?

Abstract: We present a draft genome sequence of the platypus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus. This monotreme exhibits a fascinating combination of reptilian and mammalian characters. For example, platypuses have a coat of fur adapted to an aquatic lifestyle; platypus females lactate, yet lay eggs; and males are equipped with venom similar to that of reptiles. Analysis of the first monotreme genome aligned these features with genetic innovations. We find that reptile and platypus venom proteins have been co-opted independently from the same gene families; milk protein genes are conserved despite platypuses laying eggs; and immune gene family expansions are directly related to platypus biology. Expansions of protein, non-protein-coding RNA and microRNA families, as well as repeat elements, are identified. Sequencing of this genome now provides a valuable resource for deep mammalian comparative analyses, as well as for monotreme biology and conservation.

Monotreme nested heirarchyCaption: Amniotes split into the sauropsids (leading to birds and reptiles) and synapsids (leading to mammal-like reptiles). These small early mammals developed hair, homeothermy and lactation (red lines). Monotremes diverged from the therian mammal lineage approx. 166 Myr ago and developed a unique suite of characters (dark-red text). Therian mammals with common characters split into marsupials and eutherians around 148 Myr ago (dark-red text). Geological eras and periods with relative times (Myr ago) are indicated on the left. Mammal lineages are in red; diapsid reptiles, shown as archosaurs (birds, crocodilians and dinosaurs), are in blue; and lepidosaurs (snakes, lizards and relatives) are in green.

I warned you about arguing from ignorance with people who know more than you do.

You have said evidence doesn't exist. That shows you are not looking for any.

'2)There may be evidence but you are unwilling to look for it. Unwittingly in opther fields you find evidence but your prejudice against the idea blinds you to it.(Probably you too.)'

I do know know what you have or have not studied. Hence, the word probably.

'3)There is no evidence.(Your claim to this is invalid since you fail at the first two.)'

You admitted this yourself. Hence, it applies to you.

"What predictions, how do those predictions support ID, and what evidence showed to be accurate?'

Search junk dna, id predictions. Sort through the sarcasm and see it was predicted last century that there would be a purpose for it.Quote"John S. Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland in Australia, feels that the hasty acceptance of the “junk” DNA theory is “a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century.” This failure, he adds, “may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.”

One of the biggest? I'm sure there will be bigger and more.(Sorry no statistical numbers to back that up....call it a gut feeling.)

Thats what they say. I don't necessarily agree with everything said there. Like I've said before I am not an IDer in the real sense.

"Inferring design is not hard.

Please show this to be true rather then merely asserting it."

It seems to me that according to Cricks comment "'Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.'" that inferring non-design is what needs explanation.

Your story of platypus evolution should not be a problem for evolutionists who just know that evolution happened somehow. So any story that seems reasonable to the imagination of the grand march of evolution will do just fine.

You forgot about the bird part of the story. Perhaps a better version would have included the reptiles changing to birds before becoming monotremes. Details, details.

Your story of platypus evolution should not be a problem for evolutionists who just know that evolution happened somehow. So any story that seems reasonable to the imagination of the grand march of evolution will do just fine.

You forgot about the bird part of the story. Perhaps a better version would have included the reptiles changing to birds before becoming monotremes. Details, details

You have said evidence doesn't exist. That shows you are not looking for any.

I don't recall making such a sweeping claim. I may have said we don't have any - ie. we haven't found any, but that is not the same.

There may be evidence but you are unwilling to look for it. Unwittingly in opther fields you find evidence but your prejudice against the idea blinds you to it.

Such as?

3)There is no evidence.(Your claim to this is invalid since you fail at the first two.)'

You admitted this yourself. Hence, it applies to you.

???? Huh?

Here's the bottom line - we have no evidence for the intervention of a God. I am sure any disinclination I or others would have to look for such would be completely irrelevant if such evidence existed - ID proponents and Creationists would doubtless be pushing it all into the public arena. So where is it?

Search junk dna, id predictions. Sort through the sarcasm and see it was predicted last century that there would be a purpose for it.

Now let me see if I can follow this train of logic for a moment - if animals are designed, then there will not be junk DNA and more than there will be functionless circuitry in a computer or functionless components in a car enguine, right? Have I got it?

I understand this. But notice that you are making an assumption about God - that He would not produce functionless DNA. Granted, I think this is a reasonable and sensible assumption to make, and it gives us something to test, but if we found out that junk DNA really was junk, then would it prove God did NOT intervene in life?

Let's see...

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/05/junk-dna-is-sti.html

I do not expect you to be a scientific expert. I am not one myself. When it comes to the big sciencey stuff I take a reasonable amount on trust, and I suspect you do too. But this article seems to be saying the excited flurry caused by ENCODE's discovery which was taken to mean junk DNA is not really junk, was in fact premature. Is the article wrong? Is my reading of it wrong? Does the presence of junk DNA shake your faith in the intervention of God?

Thats what they say. I don't necessarily agree with everything said there. Like I've said before I am not an IDer in the real sense.

To be honest, apart from the Junk DNA thing, the only real prediction I heard was that novel forms will appear in the fossil record without similar precursors, citing gaps in the fossil record and aprupt appearances of major phyla in the fossil record such as the Cambrian Explosion as evidence.

However, considering how rare fossilization is, and that the process which forms new fossils tends to grind up old ones, it would be totally unreasonable to expect the fossil record to be anything other than patchy.

What is important is whether the fossils we do have correspond to patterns out theories predict. The theory of evolution hypothesizes a pattern - a tree of life, and the fossils do indeed correlate to it. ID, by comparison, does not predict any particular pattern in the tree of life, or even a tree at all, since species and phyla can pop in and out of existence pretty much willy-nilly.

And as for novel forms appearing in the fossil record without similar precursors, well the speaker does not go on to give examples. How novel is 'novel'? How similar is 'similar'?

All in all, pretty vague and untestable stuff.

It seems to me that according to Cricks comment "'Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.'" that inferring non-design is what needs explanation.

Are you saying you think that the truth is always (or even merely 'usually) intuitive?

IDers have made predictions that have been shown accurate, ie. junk dna.

For the record Fil, IDC did not make that prediction. In a typically dishonest IDC fashion, the IDC camp took some scientific knowledge and declared after the fact that they had predicted it.

In point of fact, ID has not made a single before-the-fact prediction, let alone one that has proven true. The four example 'predictions' they like to trot out over at the Discovery Institute Lie Factory are all after the fact claims.

Your story of platypus evolution should not be a problem for evolutionists who just know that evolution happened somehow.

Your point was apparently that monotremes are a difficulty for the theory of evolution. My point was to demonstrate that they were not. And if you'll forgive the smugness, I think I have succeeded in this.

You forgot about the bird part of the story. Perhaps a better version would have included the reptiles changing to birds before becoming monotremes. Details, details.

Details seem to be something you don't really care much for. Yes, both birds and mammals did indeed evolve from reptiles - but not from the same ones! Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, whilst mammals evolved from a group of pelycosaurs called sphenacodonts.

Thorton name calling is childish, but par for course of a typical frustrated evolutionist.

Platypus sex chromosomes are similar to the sex chromosomes found in birds rather than mammals. It also has a couple genes found only in fish. Genetically, it is a mosaic of mammal and reptile and even bird, fish and amphibian. You still have a just-so story because evolution expects it. Look at all the holes in the picture and it becomes a lot less likely.

Ritchie, "birds did indeed evolve from reptiles". Is that a definitive fact or something repeated enough by the majority that it becomes one?

Platypus sex chromosomes are similar to the sex chromosomes found in birds rather than mammals. It also has a couple genes found only in fish. Genetically, it is a mosaic of mammal and reptile and even bird, fish and amphibian. You still have a just-so story because evolution expects it. Look at all the holes in the picture and it becomes a lot less likely.

You'll keep being an idiot as long as you keep ignoring the data from the primary scientific literature and bleating out your lame unsupported cartoon version of scientific reality. I just showed you the phylogenetic tree for the monotremes derived from recent genetic analysis, the one you said doesn't exist. But like a typical ignorant IDCer, you ignore the evidence and just want to make noise.

Lenski's experiments demonstrate that bacteria can "evolve" into bacteria.

That's an extremely churlish and petulant way of looking at it. You make it sound as though the bacteria didn't change at all. When in actual fact we see random mutation and natural selection bringing about a staggering increase in functionality against the odds - exactly the sort of thing so many anti-evolutionists insist does not happen. This is evolution in action.

(Me) How about the fact that all life on Earth is made from the same DNA code? Is that just a co-incidence?

(You) Common design and convergence can also explain that.

But common design and convergence could equally well explain the non-existence of a universal genetic code, surely?

"I don't recall making such a sweeping claim. I may have said we don't have any - ie. we haven't found any, but that is not the same."

Hmmm. I just rechecked all posts this month and you are right, that is how you phrased it. My apologies, ignore all the 1-3 points.

There is no point in me trying to convince you with design, I'm sure you did not accept it as evidence from men more learned than myself. It works for me though as it makes sense.

"I understand this. But notice that you are making an assumption about God - that He would not produce functionless DNA. Granted, I think this is a reasonable and sensible assumption to make, and it gives us something to test, but if we found out that junk DNA really was junk, then would it prove God did NOT intervene in life? "

According to the bible man was created perfect, I would assume that to mean all DNA served a purpose. But it says man sinned and so, due to imperfection, things changed with time and we have degraded. So while I'm confident some of that junk DNA will turn out to be useful there probably will be some useless stuff as well. I can't even begin to venture a guess at the amount.

"Are you saying you think that the truth is always (or even merely 'usually) intuitive? "

Lenski's experiments demonstrate that bacteria can "evolve" into bacteria.

Ritchie:That's an extremely churlish and petulant way of looking at it.

It is a fact.

Bacteria evolving into bacteria fits in with YEC's baraminology.

When in actual fact we see random mutation and natural selection bringing about a staggering increase in functionality against the odds - exactly the sort of thing so many anti-evolutionists insist does not happen. This is evolution in action.

Again evolution is not being debated and there isn't any evidence the mutations were random.

Ritchie:Yes, the mutations are random, but that's only half the story. Natural selction then filters the random mutations so the beneficial ones propegate and the disadvantageous ones do not. In this way, beneficial mutations are spread throughout the gene pool and disadvantageous ones are removed. So only beneficial mutations accumulate. That is evolution.

Natural selection is a result.

Beneficial is relative.

Neutral and even detrimental (see sickle-celled anemia) can and do also accumulate.

And on top of all that some or even most organisms survive just because- nothing to do with NS...

Thorton said, "Arguing from your personal ignorance isn't a good idea Neal, especially when those you're arguing with know considerably more on the topic than you."

and... "I warned you about arguing from ignorance with people who know more than you do. "

You respond with typical evolutionist arrogance and present a link that gives nothing more than vague generalities about monotreme lineage. Even your link makes refer to the large gap in the lineage. No problem for evolutionists because gaps are easily patched by the imagination. And imagination is good enough.

The platypus seems to have co-opted many features that were NOT in its lineage. But of course Natural Selection is the magical box where anything can happen and detailed explanations of how it happened are not necessary.

I know, I know... one must explain why it couldn't have happened in order to falsify the evolution of monotremes.

You respond with typical evolutionist arrogance and present a link that gives nothing more than vague generalities about monotreme lineage. Even your link makes refer to the large gap in the lineage. No problem for evolutionists because gaps are easily patched by the imagination. And imagination is good enough.

Would you like to discuss the specifics of the platypus genome analysis paper? Maybe you could tell us specifically where the genetic researchers got it wrong. But you won't, because like most IDCers you're perfectly happy remaining an idiot.

The platypus seems to have co-opted many features that were NOT in its lineage. But of course Natural Selection is the magical box where anything can happen and detailed explanations of how it happened are not necessary.

What features were co-opted from other creatures NOT in its lineage Neal? Be specific, and include your evidence that the monotremes and the other mystery lineages are NOT related.